scholarly journals What Motivates an Oligarchic Elite to Democratize? Evidence from the Roll Call Vote on the Great Reform Act of 1832

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 773-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toke S. Aidt ◽  
Raphaël Franck
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Roll Call ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Roll Call Vote ◽  
Members Of Parliament

AbstractThe Great Reform Act of 1832 was a watershed for democracy in Great Britain. We study the vote on 22 March 1831 in the House of Commons to test three competing theories of democratization: public opinion, political expedience, and threat of revolution. Peaceful agitation and mass-support for reform played an important role. Political expedience also motivated some members of Parliament to support the reform, especially if they were elected in constituencies located in counties that would gain seats. Violent unrest in urban but not in rural areas had some influence on the members of Parliament. Counterfactual scenarios suggest that the reform bill would not have obtained a majority in the House of Commons in the absence of these factors.

3. Debating Politics and Making Laws

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-97
Author(s):  
Peter John
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The Political ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

This chapter evaluates the institution of the UK Parliament, where parliamentarians have a chance to debate issues of the day and to make laws. It reviews classic arguments about the power of Parliament in relation to the executive, before looking at the role of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The account is still influenced by the Westminster system of government, whereby the executive in the form of the government is sustained in power by having a majority in the House of Commons. The chapter then considers what Members of Parliament (MPs) and other representatives do in office, and how their behaviour links to other features of the political process, such as public opinion and constituency interests. It also compares other legislatures, such as the Scottish Parliament, with the UK Parliament.

The Parliamentary Labor Party in Great Britain

1950 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-871
Author(s):  
James Macgregor Burns
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
The Political ◽  
British Politics ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Labor Party ◽  
The Past ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Formal Power ◽  
Equal Power

Who rules Britain? For the political scientist hunting out the real core of power, the question is hard to answer. Students of British politics have variously concluded that the Cabinet, or Parliament, or the party in power, or the administrative class of civil servants, or the “Big Three” (or Four, or Five)—or some combination of these—actually held the reins of authority. Constitutionally, however, the question is an easy one. Formal power rests with a majority of the Members of Parliament. This majority can pass laws and raise money, can bring down governments and make new ones, can change the Constitution itself.Those who have ruled Britain in this sense during the past five years have been a few hundred Labor Members of the House of Commons, organized in the Parliamentary Labor Party. Constitutionally, this is the ruling group, every member of which has equal power. In fact, a small minority of Labor Members, grouped in or about the Cabinet, actually make the great decisions of state. At the same time, the large majority of Labor Members not only lack real power but even in their very name —Backbenchers—they appear as the symbols of impotence.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Horder
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Adequate Coverage

The criminal law has the resources to address corruption in politics, if prosecutors are willing to use it, and if courts are willing to interpret it so that it provides adequate coverage of wrongdoing, particularly wrongdoing in the form of personal corruption engaged in by Members of Parliament. There needs to be a greater willingness to expose the worst corrupt wrongdoers in high office to the risk of judgment at the bar of public opinion, in the form of jury trial. The offence of misconduct in office provides the most appropriate means of doing this. This is not just because it is likely to provide the most appropriate label, but because the offence highlights the constitutionally fundamental bond of trust between the citizen and the state that is broken when officials indulge in corruption.

scholarly journals The Death of May’s Law: Intra- and Inter-Party Value Differences in Britain’s Labour and Conservative Parties

2021 ◽  
pp. 003232172199563
Author(s):  
Alan Wager ◽  
Tim Bale ◽  
Philip Cowley ◽  
Anand Menon
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Party Competition ◽  
Cultural Issues ◽  
Value Differences ◽  
Economic Issues ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Significant Disagreement ◽  
Party Members ◽  
First Time

Party competition in Great Britain increasingly revolves around social or ‘cultural’ issues as much as it does around the economic issues that took centre stage when class was assumed to be dominant. We use data from surveys of members of parliament, party members and voters to explore how this shift has affected the internal coalitions of the Labour and Conservative Parties – and to provide a fresh test of ‘May’s Law’. We find a considerable disconnect between ‘neoliberal’ Conservative members of parliament and their more centrist voters on economic issues and similarly significant disagreement on cultural issues between socially liberal Labour members of parliament and their more authoritarian voters. We also find differences in both parties between parliamentarians and their grassroots members, albeit that these are much less pronounced. May’s Law, not for the first time, appears not to be borne out in reality.

Off the Record: Unrecorded Legislative Votes, Selection Bias and Roll-Call Vote Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 691-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLIFFORD J. CARRUBBA ◽  
MATTHEW GABEL ◽  
LACEY MURRAH ◽  
RYAN CLOUGH ◽  
ELIZABETH MONTGOMERY ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Selection Bias ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Roll Call ◽  
General Study ◽  
Roll Call Vote ◽  
Legislative Voting ◽  
Sampling Problem ◽  
The Universe

Scholars often use roll-call votes to study legislative behaviour. However, many legislatures only conclude a minority of decisions by roll call. Thus, if these votes are not a random sample of the universe of votes cast, scholars may be drawing misleading inferences. In fact, theories over why roll-call votes are requested would predict selection bias based on exactly the characteristics of legislative voting that scholars have most heavily studied. This article demonstrates the character and severity of this sampling problem empirically by examining European Parliament vote data for a whole year. Given that many legislatures decided only a fraction of their legislation by roll call, these findings have potentially important implications for the general study of legislative behaviour.

scholarly journals Disability, Rights and Vulnerability in British Parliamentary Debate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Odell
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Disabled People ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Parliamentary Debate ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Disability Movement ◽  
The Welfare State

This paper examines discussion of disability and disabled people by Members of Parliament (MPs) in the UK House of Commons from 1979–2017. It examines general trends in the number of speeches mentioning disability, including the parties and MPs most likely to mention disability issues, and examines how disability is used in conjunction with two keywords: ‘rights’ and ‘vulnerable’. It uses these keywords to explore two conceptions of how the state should engage with disability and disabled people: a paternalistic conception (which post-2010 has become more common) and a rights-based conception (which has been in decline since the 1990s). I conclude with a discussion about how this reflects the disability movement in the UK, and what it means for the future of disability politics, the welfare state and how disabled people themselves might view paternalistic government policies.

scholarly journals Rozwój zielonej gospodarki w sektorze rolnictwa w krajach Unii Europejskiej i w Polsce w kontekście koncepcji zrównoważonego rozwoju

2017 ◽  
Vol 17(32) (3) ◽  
pp. 195-206
Author(s):  
Łukasz Kozar
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Green Economy ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Level Of Knowledge ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Almost All

The paper presents the issues related to the green economy in the agricultural sector. In order to discuss it, an analysis of the subject literature was carried out and some selected statistical data describing the process of greening of agriculture were presented. The timeframe of the analysis covered the years 2010-2015. The GUS and Eurostat were the source of the used values. Studies have shown that almost all EU countries have increased the area of organic agricultural land in the surveyed period (except for Great Britain). In addition, the article presents the results of pilot studies conducted in the Lodz Region, aimed at diagnosing key barriers to the development of the green economy in rural areas. According to the research, the insufficient level of knowledge of farmers in this area is an important obstacle to building a green economy in rural areas.

scholarly journals Public Opinion and Public Policy in Advanced Democracies

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Wlezien
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Descriptive Representation ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Roll Call ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
The Government

The representation of public opinion in public policy is of obvious importance in representative democracies. While public opinion is important in all political systems, it is especially true where voters elect politicians; after all, opinion representation is a primary justification for representative democracy. Not surprisingly, a lot of research addresses the connection between the public and the government. Much of the work considers “descriptive representation”—whether the partisan and demographic characteristics of elected politicians match the characteristics of the electorate itself. This descriptive representation is important but may not produce actual “substantive representation” of preferences in policy. Other work examines the positions of policymakers. Some of this research assesses the roll call voting behavior of politicians and institutions. The expressed positions and voting behavior of political actors do relate to policy but are not the same things. Fortunately, a good amount of research analyzes policy. With but a handful of exceptions noted below, this research focuses on expressed preferences of the public, not their “interests.” That is, virtually all scholars let people be the judges of their own interests, and they assess the representation of expressed opinion no matter how contrary to self-interest it may seem.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document